You're one of the three master electricians working in a manufacturing plant's maintenance department. After 15 years as the plant maintenance manager, Gary retired. Jason, his replacement, was brought in from outside the organization.

Gary was a stickler for “excellence of execution.” He had used dry transfer lettering to put this phrase on his hardhat, and a sign in his office said the same thing. Under Gary's leadership, PMs were done thoroughly, repairs were done expertly, and all work was done methodically and safely.

Jason did not have this approach. After his first couple of weeks on the job, he began micromanaging people on the production floor. For example, he interrupted a repair job to tell your two coworkers production didn't have time to wait on all the extra steps there were taking. “It's good enough — button it up” became his catch phrase. He started holding meetings with crew supervisors and stressing that the work needed to be “only good enough to solve the problem.” He characterized methodical troubleshooting as “slow motion time wasting.”

Sure enough, downtime numbers improved. Crews worked faster by cutting corners. Some of the more experienced hands started mumbling that they were just planting downtime bombs by working this way. The plant engineer, however, was very pleased with the metrics, and that made it difficult to have any sort of discussion about the quality of the execution of work.

Today, however, Gary turned his attention to you. You had a crew of three assigned to assist you with some work “inside the belly” of a large machine. It was a confined entry space. The confined entry permit required taking oxygen readings and temperature readings before each entry. Each crew member had to wear extraction gear, and an attendant was required. The permit also had a two-hour duration, after which that permit would expire.

Your two hours were up, so you and the crew took your break. You returned from break and immediately began working on the new confined entry permit. Just then, Jason arrived and asked where you'd been. You explained about the break and the permit. Jason looked into the vessel, then at you. He said, “The machine is off. Can you honestly tell me you expect less oxygen in there or a higher temperature now?”

You began to explain the physical reasons why the permit had the two-hour limit and why the whole process must be repeated. Jason interrupted you and said that was just work avoidance. He told you to go into the vessel and get the job done without all that nonsense or he'd hit you with disciplinary action for insubordination. What do you do?

Jason clearly needs OSHA-related training. It's one thing to mandate mediocre work; it's another to pressure people into violating established safety procedures. Calmly tell Jason it's a matter of federal law, and he really does not want to go there.

• If he relents, thank him and tell him he made the right decision. Ask if you can discuss it in more detail later.
• If he insists, then stop work. Discreetly make your way to the plant engineer and explain what just happened. Jason's training, if he still has a job, should ensue shortly thereafter.

Any boss who tries to order you to violate safety procedures has betrayed the trust the company put in him (or her). You don't have to make a showdown situation out of it, but do hold your ground. Always be polite, respectful, and factual in your responses. The goal isn't to win a fight with another person, but to avoid compromising anyone's safety.

As for Gary's “good enough” attitude, that is less directly a safety issue. But equipment that is not properly maintained is not safe. Since you're one of the senior people in the department, you have some cache and Gary should be amenable to hearing what you have to say. Especially if the plant engineer gave him the appropriate “training” after the confined entry debacle instead of simply firing him.

To move Gary toward the excellence end of things, you'll need to “manage up” and that requires a delicate touch. A good start would be to ask Gary to read Article 200 of NFPA 70E. Make it clear you are not trying to undermine him. You just want to help him understand why some things are done the way they are. Acknowledge that a second look might reveal a need to ratchet standards down a bit, but simply discarding work standards without looking can have bad consequences.